View Single Post
  #7  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:22 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,730
Your own cite lists 1368 Fukushima related deaths besides the ones you note. It seems likely that radiation-related deaths on the USS Ronald Reagan alone will be more than you project for the entire nuclear industry.

You mock the cost-benefit analysis of others while your own is dreadfully poor. Death toll and then... end of discussion?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKBN13Y047
Costs of Fukushima cleanup double to $188 billion.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16...lear-disaster/
Total cleanup costs could exceed $1T and take 30-40 years.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XN75lkRME0M
Seven years after the disaster, the plant is releasing 2 billion becquerels per day.

But hey, no choice because renewables "don't work" and "can't replace fossil fuels." Those are great as bare assertions, but let me ask you: the trillions of kWh of renewables already generated, are they replacing fossil fuels? Do they not count if it is not a 100% replacement? Have you not heard of batteries? Examples from Germany of hitting 100% renewable generation? Instead of spending $1 trillion on cleanup, what if that were spent on renewables and storage solutions instead? Just can't because there are voices who repeat the bare assertion, "you can't"?

Look, it still could be judged that the risks of nuclear are worth the benefits. I just want to make that judgement based on a sober, factual, >>>complete<<< review of all the relevant information, instead of whatever it is you are doing.